“The John Holmes Prick Parade” Kaley A. Rigdon University of Iowa

operty
“The John Holmes Prick Parade”
Kaley A. Rigdon
University of Iowa
of the
Author

The Eve Drewelowe Gallery, located at 1374 Highway 1 West in the University of Iowa
Studio Arts building, is an art lover’s paradise. Here, observers can share an appreciation for the
artwork on display in the lofty gallery space. However, Iowa City citizens and art connoisseurs
alike have raised their eyebrows over a recent September 12 th -18 th roperty
Drewelowe Gallery exhibit:
“The John Holmes Prick Parade,” featuring nearly thirty ornamented plaster castings of the
deceased porn star, John Holmes’, “biggest asset” (Schmidt, 2011). This controversial, and to
some, down right offensive, display has caused the public to wonder: is this art or simply
pornography, and should we allow it in our schools?
The argument on whether or not explicit artwork should be displayed in The Studio Arts
Building, and if it is truly art, is debatable. Emily Moran Barwick’s parade is one such highly
of the
debated exhibit in the Iowa City community. Some students and citizens argue that Barwick’s
exhibit is offensive and should be censored; others can appreciate Barwick’s quirky style and
commend the university for allowing it to proceed. Some art lovers view the display as
pornographic, while gallery owners and museum staff see craft. Additionally, some people
express a more neutral opinion in the controversy. With so many strong opinions, classifying one
as correct and another as incorrect may be impossible in this situation.
In the article “Exhibit uses porn star to make point,” written by Stephanie Wise and
Author
published in The Iowa City Press-Citizen, it is explained that Emily Moran Barwick became
inspired by the 2004 Iowa City “Herky on Parade” fundraising project. This parade featured
many decorative variations of The University of Iowa’s mascot, Herky the Hawkeye. Barwick, a
twenty-seven year old graduate student, put her own creative twist on this idea after coming
across a cast of porn star, John Holmes’, privates at a novelty shop in Jacksonville, Florida. In
the weeks following, Barwick created replica plaster models of Holmes’ unmentionables and
2

distributed them to volunteer artists, who decorated the molds however they wished. The final
product resulted in twenty-six adorned sculptures of Holmes’ anatomy; some versions are
painted, while others are bedazzled, wearing clothing, or decorated with small toys. This gives
roperty
each model a “different theme and unique name, and each attempts to demonstrate the message
of the body as a product,” Barwick said. The exhibit also featured a large black and white
portrait of the porn star with the word “Legendary” in cursive painted in pink glitter in the
bottom left corner (2011).
“I think it is hilarious,” Jake Koch, a second year University of Iowa student, said of
Barwick’s “John Holmes Prick Parade.” I spoke with Koch as he toured the exhibit on
September 15 with some of his friends, whom he met his freshman year living on the fine arts
of the
floor of Burge Hall. “[This exhibit] makes light of something totally taboo in our society in such
an in your face way. And why not?” Koch added (personal communication, September 15,
2011).
While the parade can be seen as humorous and fun, Barwick claims this was not the goal
of the exhibit, although it was an added plus. In an interview with Stephanie Schmidt, reporter
for Iowa City Patch, Barwick claimed that “when an idea is delivered along with a little bit of
humor…the message gets through" (2011). Barwick claims that the true focus of the project was
Author
to illustrate the idea of commercializing parts of the human anatomy; “In our society, our body
very often becomes a commodity item, and this [parade] is a very literal example of that, a very
extreme example of that” (Schmidt, 2011). Barwick explains that this commercialization can be
as ‘g’ rated as a shot of glossy hair in a shampoo commercial, “to the extreme, and now more
mainstream practice, of porn stars selling sex toys based on their bodies, in this case, the John
Holmes penis” (quoted in Schmidt, 2011). Barwick’s motives seem legitimate, establishing ethos
3

in her project; she has a message that she hopes to convey through her artwork and hopes to in
turn encourage a positive response.
Unfortunately for Barwick, not everyone in Iowa City sees her intended message.
roperty
Benjamin Evans, a UI student, expresses that Barwick’s exhibit is “nothing more than a cry for
publicity from an amateur,” in his editorial featured in The Daily Iowan, The University of
Iowa’s official student newspaper. In his article, Evans uses logos and the reliable name of the
newspaper to establish ethos in his argument against Barwick’s exhibit. Evans believes
Barwick’s motives behind the exhibit are cloudy, causing him to disapprove of her display. He
considers Barwick’s supposed inspiration and reasons for creating the parade as contradictory
and unclear, therefore shutting down any ethos Barwick was hoping to establish (Evans, 2011).
of the
Using logos, Evans explains that the focus of “Herky on Parade” was to exemplify the
passion that the Iowa City community holds for the arts and athletics; Herky the Hawkeye was
meant to be a representation of this “unique fusion that exists in Iowa City,” not to show the
mascot as a commercialized product, Evans states in his article. Evans goes on to say that “Herky
on Parade” directly contrasts with Barwick’s exhibit because her display is “all about the penis
as a product, not as a symbol of individualistic expression,” as was the target with the original
Herky project. Therefore, Evans believes that using “Herky on Parade” as a supposed inspiration
Author
“cannot be anything more than a plug for attention” (Evans, 2011).
In addition, Evans is not convinced when it comes to Barwick’s main focus involving the
question of body ownership: “[her] point is blurred when you find out that the collaboration
inside the project was limited to volunteers being given casts of the original penis. There is no
capitalism there,” Evans says. Expanding on this idea, he claims “the penis was not a product
sold to the public to do what they choose with it. [Rather,] it was given to a select few with a
4

specific focus in mind.” This directly contradicts the Herky project and diminishes Barwick’s
honesty and credibility. Evans believes that Barwick simply claimed that 2004’s “Herky on
Parade” project was her inspiration in order to gain attention from the university and the media;
roperty
it is this, as Evan’s believes, faulty motive that makes the exhibit impossible for him to support
(Evans, 2011).
The motives and inspiration of Barwick are not the only elements of this art exhibit that
cause people to disagree. The fact that UI is displaying an exhibit featuring a porn star’s penis as
its subject matter causes some real arguments to ensue. While Barwick claims that she did not
“do the show in order to upset people” and that it “wasn’t meant to be a shock thing” (quoted in
Wise, 2011), many people are finding themselves in that state of mind. I spoke with one
of the
concerned citizen, Amanda Johnson, who does not support Barwick’s endeavors. “I find this
really offensive. There is no way around that,” Johnson said. She refused to visit the exhibit as
she toured The Studio Arts Building on September 15. “An art museum is no place for
pornography,” she stated. “This exhibit glorifies the porn industry and the AIDS virus” (personal
communication, September 15, 2011).
It turns out that Johnson’s opinion is not far-fetched. After all, according to Mark
Carlson’s article in The Gazette, John Holmes was considered to be a legendary adult film star in
Author
the 1970s and 1980s. Holmes contracted the HIV virus and continued to perform in his movies
without informing his co-stars, infecting dozens of people with HIV, before he died of AIDS in
1988 (Carlson, 2011). It is a reasonable argument to think that Barwick is honoring John Holmes
through creating the art display. Even though Barwick assures that she “did not want to promote
Holmes’ life or lifestyle” (quoted in Schmidt, 2011), Amanda Johnson and Kathie Marold,
another concerned citizen, don’t buy it; posting to KCRG Fox40’s online forum, Marold
5

expressed that “[the exhibit] is closer to porn than art” (Marold). Consequently, Marold believes
that the university is an inappropriate place for Barwick’s exhibit (Marold).
As it turns out, Johnson and Marold are not alone in this opinion; many people are
roperty
uncomfortable with Barwick’s artistic display because the school sponsors the exhibit. Another
concerned Iowa citizen, Brad Britzman, also posted on KCRG Fox40’s forum to state his opinion
regarding Barwick’s parade: “if you want to display this then find a private gallery and don't
push this kind of trash on me. Share it in non-taxpayer supported place” Britzman stated
(Britzman). Britzman believes that the school is inappropriately using tax money when it could
be spent on books, renovations or other projects that would support education. This idea would
not only help students, but it would not be controversial. Britzman’s argument is based on
of the
mythos: as a society, we believe that taxpayer’s money should be put to appropriate usage.
Britzman uses this mythos example in hope of convincing others that Barwick’s display is
inappropriate to have in a public university.
However, The University of Iowa art program and administration carefully considered
Barwick’s project before it was ever advertised; this gains ethos and credibility in their decision
to include Barwick’s parade in the Studio Arts Building. Patricia Arkema, Studio Arts’
Department Administrator, and the university’s spokesman, Tom Moore, believe that as long as
Author
the exhibit is handled appropriately and professionally, there should be no issue when it comes to
allowing Barwick’s display. Moore stated that “the University reviewed the exhibit, and it met
all the guidelines and it’s been allowed to go forward because it’s a matter of artistic expression”
(quoted in Carlson, 2011).
Arkema explained to me through email that each artist who creates an exhibition “must
sign a contract and agree to abide by [Studio Arts] policies” (personal communication,
6

September 29, 2011). If the policies are not followed, the exhibit will not be put on display on
University of Iowa property. Some of the policies include: no illegal acts, signed agreement and
permission by Director for use of live nude models, no animals or insects, sound kept at low and
roperty
reasonable levels, no fire arms, no form of discrimination, no alcoholic beverages, no use of
blood or body fluid, and compliance with fire and safety laws (personal communication,
September 29, 2011). Additionally, Arkema stated that all artists are encouraged to consider the
consequences of their work and to be “particularly aware of its impact upon the audience”
(personal communication, September 29, 2011). Because Barwick’s project had undergone the
proper steps before it was displayed and she complied with the aforementioned guidelines, there
was no reason Studio Arts could not allow her parade. In fact, Arkema is happy to include
of the
Bariwck’s display, claiming that it is a “new and eccentric form of art with a very powerful
message that ought to be explored” (personal communication, September 29, 2011).
In an attempt to help make those who disagree with the exhibit more comfortable and due
to the sexual nature of the art, Studio Arts staff made sure that the door to the room would be
closed at all times. This would ensure that “anybody passing by wouldn’t be exposed to
something they didn’t want to see,” Moore said (quoted in Carlson, 2011). This helped to keep
the impact of a sensitive audience in mind, as Arkema explained. One large sign posted on the
Author
door of the gallery informs visitors that “the gallery is open” and a small disclaimer informed
visitors to “be advised that some may find the subject matter in the exhibition controversial”
(Barwick, 2011).
While this is not the ideal situation for her exhibit, Barwick understands UI’s decision to
close the doors, as she explains in her interview with Stephanie Wise: “I do a lot of edgy art, but
I don’t want to thrust it upon anyone” (quoted in Wise, 2011). However some citizens believe
7

that the closed door and partial censorship are not nearly enough, believing the display is in poor
taste and does not belong in an art museum. Kathie Marold struggles to see the art in displaying
Holmes’ genitals, as she expressed in her forum post: “Does the Guggenheim or the Smithsonian
roperty
have an adult section? I certainly wouldn't care to explain this ‘art’ to my grandchildren”
(Marold).
However, UI art student, Shelby Lynn Carra has a simple solution to Marold’s argument.
She posted her opinion the KGAN CBS2 facebook page: “if you don’t want your children to see
it, don’t go” (Carra). Carra appreciates the fact that UI has not completely censored the art
exhibit. The art student agues that the press and the community are making a bigger deal out of
Barwick’s exhibit than needed: “why make it so sexual? It is human anatomy” (Carra), she said.
of the
In Carra’s eyes, Barwick’s exhibit is just a unique form of art—one that should be displayed.
The real question on everyone’s mind seems to be, is the exhibit truly artistic expression,
as Tom Moore and Studio Arts believe, or is it pornography? It seems that there is not one clear
answer to this question; people have varying opinions on what constitutes pornography and how
Barwick’s display fits into the category, if at all. Kathie Marold believes that there is no way
around the fact that the exhibit features pornography. Marold feels, as expressed in her forum
post, that because Holmes was a porn star and that an adult sex toy mold inspired Barwick’s
Author
exhibit, the pornographic nature of the subject matter is maintained. “It’s not the male anatomy
that bothers me, it’s the glorification of porn that I see, no matter which way I turn my head”
(Marold), she said. Many people believe there are other places where pornography can be
showcased, but an art museum is not one of them; they believe Barwick’s display should not
have been permitted.
Benjamin Chait, local artist and owner of Chait Galleries located in downtown Iowa City,
8

fully supports Studio Arts’ decision to display Barwick’s art; in his interview with Stephanie
Wise, he claims that it would be unjust and a shame if the exhibit wasn’t shown. Chait’s
experience with studying, creating, selling, and displaying artwork, gains instant ethos in his
roperty
argument. He claims that putting the human body on display is some of the best forms of art and
is nothing new. In fact, the University of Iowa Art Museum, located in the Iowa Memorial
Union, currently features multiple paintings and sculptures featuring nudity and the university
even holds nude drawing classes; these art exhibits and sessions are all supported fully by the
university and the public, as well as tax dollars. Chait has even created his own artwork featuring
the human anatomy. Chait says that this type of art has not always been a huge issue and is often
encouraged and supported by the public. “It’s all in the context in which it’s offered” (quoted in
of the
Wise, 2011) Chait claims. Chait Galleries has featured so-called penis art for many years and has
never once felt the criticism as experienced by Barwick. “We have quite a bit of it, and [the
community] doesn’t find it offensive" (quoted in Wise, 2011), he said. Chait feels that all artists
have a right to express themselves and gallery owners and museums have the right to display
such art, in a way, expressing themselves as well (Wise, 2011).
Still, other people remain more neutral in stating their opinions about Barwick’s project,
claiming that they can understand both sides of the spectrum. Illinois art teacher, Stacy Duncun
Author
decided to skip Barwick’s exhibit all together while on her museum visit, claiming that the
material in the gallery was not her cup of tea. However, she explained to me that this does not
mean Duncun believes Barwick’s expression should be criticized. “I don’t understand why there
is so much fuss,” Duncan stated, “if you don’t want to see this exhibit, then don’t! But censoring
this artwork isn’t right either” (personal communication, September 15, 2011). Duncan claims
that it is the community’s job to present the art and it is an individual’s personal decision on
9

whether or not they will attend. As an art teacher, Duncan believes that any type of artwork
ought to be encouraged; all art has some unique form of beauty, as well as creative story, and
Duncan strongly feels that any time this creativity can be expressed the local museums ought to
roperty
support it. However, people often disagree when it comes to artwork, and the “feelings and
opinions of all people must be respected,” Duncan claims (personal communication, September
15, 2011).
I spoke with Alex Molzof, a Kirkwood Community College student visiting Iowa City on
September 15, and he claims that he doesn’t have a problem with the exhibit but can empathize
with those who do. He went through the exhibit with a friend after hearing about the controversy.
“It’s not like you see this kind of art every day,” Molzof said (personal communication,
of the
September 15, 2011). He believes that people simply are not used to the idea of displaying the
penis as art in itself, rather than art involving the entire nude man or body (personal
communication, September 15, 2011).
If you take a moment to think, it is easy to list many treasured works of art that display
the entire human body in nude form: Michelangelo’s David and Sistine Chapel ceiling painting,
Leonardo De Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, and Balthus’ Nude Girl, for example. These works are
considered treasured masterpieces. Why has nudity and the human anatomy in art never struck
Author
such a nerve? “Because [the penis] is the only object and the focal point of the art, people get
uncomfortable” Molzof explained, “not to mention the fact that people are used to seeing the
female nude” (personal communication, September 15, 2011). In her blog, Barwick explains that
this is precisely why her display should be allowed in a university. “The John Holmes Prick
Parade hopes to give some visibility to the much neglected male apparatus,” the artist said on her
online blog, hoping to spark conversation and to bring “gender equality within the anatomical
10

objectification of the art world” (Barwick, 2011).
It is evident that Emily Moran Barwick’s gallery exhibit has brought about everything
from laughter to outrage as people try to make heads or tails of “The John Holmes Prick Parade.”
roperty
“People have a right to their opinion” (quoted in Schueller, 2011), she stated. Art is supposed to
be an emotional process and strike conversation; it is easy to see that Emily Barwick display has
accomplished that goal. “I’ve gotten a lot of hate mail, but it doesn’t matter” (quoted in
Schueller, 2011) Barwick says of her negative criticism, claiming that any emotion, positive or
negative, is flattering because she then knows that she has done her job as an artist.
All art is subjective; what is beautiful to one person could be interpreted as boring to
another. Emily Barwick’s “John Holmes Prick Parade” is no doubt a suggestive and subjective
of the
display. Whether, Barwick’s parade is considered to be art or not, remains debatable. We will
never reach a final decision in this argument; perhaps, when dealing with this particular
controversy, society must agree to disagree. One thing that can be agreed upon is that Barwick’s
display has definitely sparked conversation about artwork and the human anatomy as subject
material: a major part of Barwick’s goal all along. So, whether you like the display or not, it can
still be considered a success in Barwick’s eyes.
Author
11

References
Britzman, B. (2011, September 14). Message posted to http://www.facebook.com/kfxafox28.
Carlson, M. (2011, Sep 15). Controversial UI art exhibit goes forward—with doors closed. The
roperty
Gazette. Retrieved from http://thegazette.com/2011/09/15/controversial-ui-art-exhibitgoes-forward-with-doors-closed/
Carra, S. (2011, September 14). Message posted to http://www.facebook.com/kgancbs2
Emily Moran Barwick. (2011, Sep 7). What’s This All About, Then? (Web log comment).
Retrieved from http://emilybarwickparade.blogspot.com
Evans, B, Schueller, J (2011, Sep 16). ‘Prick Parade: Attention ploy or artistic expression? The
Daily
of the
Iowan. Retrieved from http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/09/16/Opinions/24894.html
Marold, K. (2011, September 14). Message posted to http://www.facebook.com/kfxafox28
Schmidt, S. (2011, Sep 16). Porn Star’s (Unmentionable) Inspires Iowa City Art Show. Iowa
City Patch. Retrieved from http:// iowacity.patch.com/articles/porn-stars-unmentionableinspires-iowa-city-art-show
Schueller, J. (2011, Sep 16). ‘Prick Parade: Attention ploy or artistic expression? The Daily
Iowan. Retrieved from http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/09/16/Opinions/24894.html
Author
Wise, S. (2011, Sep 13). Exhibit uses porn star to make point. Iowa City Press-Citizen. Retrieved
from http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20110914/NEWS01/109140330/Exhibit-usesporn-star-to-make-point
12